09-07-2011, 03:21 PM
Hi Paul,
As I wrote earlier, it’s definitely an insignia – without the belt it’s not a soldier. I don’t think we argued against it’s use in battle either, only that it does not seem to have been necessary in battle. The discussion here is I think more about the shape and use – the rosettes, the width, the silvering of the parts – all part of a fashion statement.
I agree with you about the belt being typical for the soldier, but that goes for all the military belts. And as the balteus of the 1st-c. legionary is a typical fashion product of this age, the very wide belt of the 4th c. is a fashion product is typical for that one. Neither is more practical or less practical for use on the battlefield.
Quote:Really good discussion- but I disagree that the belt is a fashion item. It is a part of the insignia of a Roman official/ soldier and so is more a status identifier than a pure fashion item.Yes and no.
As I wrote earlier, it’s definitely an insignia – without the belt it’s not a soldier. I don’t think we argued against it’s use in battle either, only that it does not seem to have been necessary in battle. The discussion here is I think more about the shape and use – the rosettes, the width, the silvering of the parts – all part of a fashion statement.
I agree with you about the belt being typical for the soldier, but that goes for all the military belts. And as the balteus of the 1st-c. legionary is a typical fashion product of this age, the very wide belt of the 4th c. is a fashion product is typical for that one. Neither is more practical or less practical for use on the battlefield.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
